New federal rules now require agencies to kill old ones first
H.R. 1963 — Agency Accountability and Cost Transparency Act of 2025 · Filed by Beth Van Duyne (R-TX) · Introduced Mar 6, 2025 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill requires federal agencies to prove that any major new regulation (one costing $100 million or more annually) is 'budget neutral'—meaning they must identify and repeal an existing rule of equal cost before issuing the new one. Agencies must publish a statement in the Federal Register declaring whether each major rule meets this test. The bill benefits regulated industries and businesses by making it harder to issue new protections; it costs ordinary citizens by potentially blocking or delaying safety, environmental, labor, and consumer rules.
Why we flagged it
The bill does not repeal rules directly; instead, it imposes a procedural requirement that makes new regulation contingent on eliminating old ones. This is a structural deregulation tool disguised as a 'cost transparency' measure. The title emphasizes 'accountability' and 'transparency,' but the mechanism is a one-way ratchet favoring industry.
What the text implies
- The 'budget neutral' test applies only to NEW rules, not existing ones. Agencies cannot repeal a costly rule without issuing a new one of equal cost, creating a regulatory lock-in that protects incumbent rules from scrutiny.
- The definition of 'cost' includes 'cost to understand or implement the rule'—a vague metric that could inflate estimates of compliance burden and make new rules appear more expensive than they are, biasing the analysis against regulation.
The full analysis lists 5 implications of this text.
Who stands to gain
regulated industries (manufacturing, energy, finance, pharmaceuticals); large corporations with compliance infrastructure; business lobbying groups